GC70, I agree that, indeed, testimony can be compelled from a witness under the statutes under use/derivative use immunity. However,i in none of the cases cited was the DoJ/IC in active opposition to the grant. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is the Justice Department's own attorneys which draft and execute the documents. So, hypothetically, what happens if the DoJ refuses to play along? Do we have another Marbury v. Madison where an agency's ministerial vs. discretionary acts must be elucidated and the ministerial act (as understood by the court) compelled?
One other complicating factor also comes to mind. No federal actor has the authority to grant any sort of immunity, use or otherwise, for testimony given which might self-incriminate on a state crime. A grant of immunity might thus be required from the various states attorneys. I see this being litigated furiously on multiple fronts, all with the primary goal of delaying all proceedings by every means available.
Does anyone here REALLY think Cunningham is anxious to roll over on Breuer and/or Holder and the only thing holding him back is fear of prosecution by his current employer (DOJ)? Didn't think so.